Who Is The Holy Spirit?

[MarieA27]

Originally Posted by Luke

My point is that if Jesus were created then it makes verse 16 impossible to be true.

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Who is the Him spoken of in verse 16? Whoever the Him is he did not have a creator because as the creator of all things He would have had to create Himself befroe he existed otherwise He would not be the creator of all things.

When you compare the colossians 1:16 with John 1:3

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Again He someone is shown as making all things and in fact it here goes so far as to say that if He did not make it then it was not made. Whoever the is in this verse cannot have had a creator if we are to accept this verse for what it says.

So who do you say the these to verses are talking about?

How are you a trinitarian?

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by MarieA27

How are you a trinitarian?

Many Trins hold to a Oneness view and don't even know it.

[Farfel]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

Many Trins hold to a Oneness view and don't even know it.

Yessir.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Luke

Ok isee where you are coming from i think.

Let me ask you a question. Do you understand how i find fault with your perspective as i laid it out in the previous post? Do you consider it to be a logical arguement to your perspective? not saying you agree with it but do you consider the arguement logical?

Sure. As I've said, I've asked the same questions myself.

As to the question of His being the first born this is obviously not speaking of His birth here on earth otherwise how could He have been before all things or how could He have created all things? It also is obviously not speaking of a literal birth in the distant past sometime otherwise He again is not before all things also this view would mean that there is of necessity a female goddess running around somewhere which would be to espouce a doctrine of polytheism. So if it is not speaking of a literal birth it stands to reason that the term firstborn is to be taken as a postion rather than a cronological order. In other words this is being used to signify that Jesus is above all others He is to have the preimer spot the highest and loftiest place. Just as with the old testament laws of inheiritance the firstborn got the best and most of all things. So with Jesus He there is none higher than He.

The image, whoever He is, is identified as the firstborn of God, not God Himself who is firstborn. In your view, is the term firstborn a reference to God the Father or to the image of God the Father? It's my position that this image, who was the firstborn of God, was a likeness, resemblance to God the Father, not God the Father Himself.

In fairness, do you see a problem with the view that God is the firstborn of all creation?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That doesnt make the architect "the Creator". Btw they could not have built it without someone feeding them or without transportation

I publicly repent for using an analogy. I swore off them years ago because the argument focuses on the analogy instead of scripture. Forget what I said and discard the analogy I used.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I publicly repent for using an analogy. I swore off them years ago because the argument focuses on the analogy instead of scripture. Forget what I said and discard the analogy I used.

No problemo

[Luke]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Sure. As I've said, I've asked the same questions myself.



The image, whoever He is, is identified as the firstborn of God, not God Himself who is firstborn. In your view, is the term firstborn a reference to God the Father or to the image of God the Father? It's my position that this image, who was the firstborn of God, was a likeness, resemblance to God the Father, not God the Father Himself.

In fairness, do you see a problem with the view that God is the firstborn of all creation?

If I were saying the the firstborn was God the Father then yes I could see the problem, but as a trinitarian I would put forth that it is speaking of Jesus both the Son of God and yet fully man fully God equal to the Father but not the Father. As is clear from this post and others I am a trinitarian but I also am not attempting to start a oneness vrs trinity argument just trying to answer the question asked me.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Luke

If I were saying the the firstborn was God the Father then yes I could see the problem, but as a trinitarian I would put forth that it is speaking of Jesus both the Son of God and yet fully man fully God equal to the Father but not the Father. As is clear from this post and others I am a trinitarian but I also am not attempting to start a oneness vrs trinity argument just trying to answer the question asked me.

Gee...As a Oneness I'd say that too...

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Gee...As a Oneness I'd say that too...

Glad we agree.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Luke

Glad we agree.

Yes...I'm glad you agree with us